Alfred Toepfer. Sponsor and Businessman. The Foundations of a Biography – A Critical Appraisal Editors: Georg Kreis, Gerd Krumeich, Henri Ménudier, Hans Mommsen, Arnold Sywottek Christians Verlag: Hamburg 2000 Introduction By Georg Kreis/Gerd Krumeich/Henri Ménudier/Hans Mommsen/ Arnold Sywottek (†) The period of National Socialist rule continues to preoccupy us. The intensity and focus of the arguments may change, but it must be assumed that they will never reach a conclusion. In the nineties the discussions gained a new quality to the extent that they intensively and persistently concentrated on the exploitative behaviour of industrial concerns, banks and insurance companies towards the victims of the National Socialist regime, and pressed for the opening of the relevant archives.1 This investigation of hitherto largely neglected aspects of German and European contemporary history, in the face of the oppressive procedures that were revealed, also intensified questions about the behaviour of other groups of people and associations during this period, for instance the question about the involvement of historians in the preparation and legitimisation of the extermination policy of the “Third Reich” or the question about the role of cultural institutions in the setting up, consolidation and extension of National Socialist rule.2 The organised campaign which in 1996 brought to a head criticism of the politico-cultural commitment of the foundation sponsor Alfred Toepfer, who died in 1993, belongs in this context. Although it did not only come subsequently to the renewed interest in the period of National Socialist rule, the wider resonance which this criticism has found in recent years, as well as the willingness of the Alfred Toepfer foundation F.V.S. to respond to the allegations, can be explained by the generally heightened sensitivity to “historical disclosures” of events during the years before 1945. A summary of the criticism can be found in the 1996 pamphlet “Ombres et lumieres sur les fondations Toepfer”.3 The main allegation is of close ties between Alfred Toepfer and the “Third Reich”. He is said to have supported the National Socialist regime ideologically and materially; to have zealously served the ends of the National Socialists specialising in activities in the “Germanisation” policy; and to have conducted himself as an active and convinced accomplice in the criminal enterprises of the National Socialists.4 Among the evidence cited for ideological affinity is the awarding of prizes to mainstays of the National Socialist regime; furthermore the nomination of leading National Socialists in prize controlling boards or their appointment as laudators, as well as the provision of the foundation’s buildings for events staged by National Socialist organisations. With regard to Alsace, Toepfer is even charged with political-military support: Toepfer is said to have got Alsatians who had been evacuated to the French interior to go back, with the consequence that they were recruited into the German army; also to have recruited Alsatians as agents for German counter-intelligence. Toepfer is also accused of the following: -That he did not openly declare in favour of the National Socialist regime, but supported it secretly. In spite of this there is talk of “open instigation”5, of Toepfer’s double role, and that he wanted to stay in the background out of consideration for business interests. In this connection Toepfer is even criticised for his non-membership of the NSDAP. -That he was an entrepreneur of dishonest business behaviour. As a skilful businessman he was not averse to illegal dealings. He put his commercial skills at the service of the National Socialist regime, especially in participating in the pillage of France. He also used the war for personal enrichment, in Poland and Czechoslovakia, among other places. -That after 1945 he did not for a moment make a critical examination of his activities and those of his foundation, and he depicted them as being more harmless than they had been. Toepfer after the war had forgotten his involvement in criminal enterprises.6 He had even gone so far as to present himself as a man of the resistance. -That he was injudicious and took no advice. Not only had he not distanced himself from the National Socialist past; he had actually carried on with it in some methods of dealing. Among the evidence cited for the continuity of his dealings since the Nazi period7 is the leaving of former National Socialists on foundation committees, the awarding of prizes to people who were closely connected with National Socialism, the continuing support for separatism in Alsace and the agitation of the German-speaking population there. This last, even if it accorded with the circumstances of the time, was no less irresponsible in that it led to confrontation.8 These allegations were continued in a condensed and over-simplified form from 1996 onwards. In the parliament of the canton of Basel-Stadt on the 12 April 1999 there was talk of the “NS perpetrator Alfred Toepfer” and it was claimed that the F.V.S. foundation had financed the foreign cultural policy of the “Third Reich” with its culture prizes.9 ©Alfred Toepfer Stiftung F.V.S. Alfred Toepfer. Sponsor and Businessman. The Foundations of a Biography – A Critical Appraisal Editors: Georg Kreis, Gerd Krumeich, Henri Ménudier, Hans Mommsen, Arnold Sywottek Christians Verlag: Hamburg 2000 These interpretations took up sometimes word-for-word what Michael Fahlbusch alleges in his study, published shortly before, on the Volksdeutschen Forschungsgemeinschaften (ethnic German research associations) (VFG): the “scientific aiding and abetting of the Holocaust”.10 However this charge, strikingly made in the summary, finds no confirmation in the portrayal of the cynical ideology of academic Volkstumsforschung and its dovetailing with state bodies of the German Reich.11 But it becomes relevant for the assessment of Alfred Toepfer to the extent that several VFG members were supporters and curators of his non-independent Johan Wolfgang Goethe foundation at Freiburg im Breisgau. According to Fahlbusch, the F.V.S. foundation made a contribution to the “aestheticisation of the NS culture”.12 In order to understand, confirm or refute these allegations, one would have to work through an extensive catalogue of fundamental questions regarding both the preconceptions of the critics and also the contexts on which they base their polemics. One would need to clarify, among other things, what characterises a “Nazi perpetrator” and to what extent one can speak of “support” in a mere functional sense, or a more unequivocally motivated “aiding and abetting” of an undoubtedly criminal regime. One would additionally need to recapitulate the ways the regime functioned, and also discuss the standards by which the behaviour of members of the warring armies of this regime can and should be assessed. All of this cannot be accomplished in the context of this statement. The independent historians’ commission set up by the Alfred Toepfer foundation F.V.S. therefore initially attempted to gain a comprehensive picture of Alfred Toepfer and his foundations based on all available relevant sources and fit this picture into the contemporary historical context. Toepfer’s relationship to National Socialism as an ideology and to National Socialists as representatives of power in the German Reich from 1933 was given particular attention, as were indications which might provide information on his attitude to the German policy on Jews and to the Holocaust. The commission also pursued the problem of enrichment from various points of view – both personal enrichment and that of the commercial house of Alfred C. Toepfer. Finally it put the history of Alfred Toepfer’s foundations under scrutiny, from the motives of their founder in making his fortune available for charitable purposes to the way the foundations operated. Not least to be established in this process were his individual objectives, which he pursued with his foundations, and the ideas on which they were based. The commission investigated the question of continuity particularly in the case of the Alsace involvement. In the end the following picture emerged of the founder and his foundations13: Alfred Toepfer was neither a promoter of the National Socialists before 1933 nor an enthusiastic adherent of the National Socialist regime in the twelve years that followed. He was never moved to become a member of the NSDAP or any of its affiliates. And he never shared the central objectives of the leading National Socialists; he was far from being a racist or anti-Semite. Demonstrative endorsement of the German Reich’s policy towards Jews or even individual joint responsibility for the “Holocaust” cannot be imputed to him; he did not enrich himself with “Aryanised” Jewish property. This explains why his de-Nazification process ended in the categorisation of “not incriminated”, particularly since he was released as a blameless, free man in 1947 after two years of internment with numerous intensive interrogations by British and French security services. Even as a reserve officer of the German army, at first in counter-intelligence, then in special war economy detachments, no misconduct was proven by the Allies – a state of affairs which even with modern hindsight should not be disregarded, since contemporary standards of judgement can be inferred from it. The renewed examination of the life and work of Alfred Toepfer on the basis of sources accessible today gives no reason to criticise these contemporary assessments. But Alfred Toepfer never fought against the National Socialist dictatorship. He showed as little solidarity with those marginalised and persecuted by it as he did sympathy with the resistance groups against Hitler. His talks, which he later often mentioned, with the writer Ernst Jünger in Paris in 1943, which stimulated Jünger to write his work “Der Friede” (“Peace”),14 took place after the turn of the Second World War and seem to have been more moved by a shrewd concern about the situation after the end of the fighting, foreseeable to many contemporaries, than intended to help mobilise any resistance action.